Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

But Powerplay in Open requires a logical outcome to be consistent- for example quitting out and surviving to deliver Powerplay cargo that would ordinarily be destroyed.

No different from the rest of the game. Noting that Powerplay 2.0 seems to be, from what we know, "playing the game while pledged" (with maybe a bit of extra Powerplay specific activity).

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and what are the "rules" of the feature (that exists inside the framework of the game and modes which already have rules)?

Talking hypothetically- its disabling block (but shuffling instances after a set amount), keeping cargo locked to modes (and logging out unless safe) and ensuring when PvP happens it has a logical outcome. Otherwise, its like NPCs vanishing before they die.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No different from the rest of the game. Noting that Powerplay 2.0 seems to be, from what we know, "playing the game while pledged" (with maybe a bit of extra Powerplay specific activity).

It is different, because fort, UM depend on them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Who is the Archer guy? I thought there was only 1 new Power, the Alliance person, Kaine.

Replaces Hudson. Archer is the sub Prez and Winters The Lady of FederalNESS

 

[Nowski]

You can't have a consistent experience if everyone has their own rules in a feature that is competitive.

It's the job of the game mechanics (and FD) to set the rules. Why should I care about your take on "consistency" beyond those defacto standards? The standards are the same for all (unless they choose to augment them), and that's an actual objective "consistency".

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's the job of the game mechanics (and FD) to set the rules. Why should I care about your take on "consistency" beyond those defacto standards? The standards are the same for all (unless they choose to augment them), and that's an actual objective "consistency".

These would be set by the game, its why I'm arguing for them.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

Streamer visited his powers stronghold carrier, lots and lots (like 20+) ships flying around and several cap ships. Looks like a very busy place

 

[Robert Maynard]

Talking hypothetically- its disabling block (but shuffling instances after a set amount), keeping cargo locked to modes (and logging out unless safe) and ensuring when PvP happens it has a logical outcome. Otherwise, its like NPCs vanishing before they die.

Players have been talking about hypothetical changes to their advantage for a long time now, especially as it relates to freedoms that all players currently enjoy and the desire of some players to remove them from them in some or all situations.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is different, because fort, UM depend on them.

Will fortification and undermining still be present in 2.0 as they are in v1?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Players have been talking about hypothetical changes to their advantage for a long time now, especially as it relates to freedoms that all players currently enjoy and the desire of some players to remove them from them in some or all situations.

So how is it an advantage to have a logical outcome to a battle? Do you think its fair for someone losing to quit jump back in as if nothing had happened?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Will fortification and undermining still be present in 2.0 as they are in v1?

Going by what was in the UI, yes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Now the guy is playing with oompah Xmas music.

Its only my love for the feature preventing me destroying my speakers....

 

[Rubbernuke]

Merits for interdiction

 

[Nowski]

These would be set by the game, its why I'm arguing for them.

Based on a subjective idea of "consistency" that stems from a particular set of choices around why and how to engage with PowerPlay that are far from universal, yes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Merits for interdiction

Interesting - and likely exploitable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So how is it an advantage to have a logical outcome to a battle? Do you think its fair for someone losing to quit jump back in as if nothing had happened?

When did fairness enter the chat in relation to player interactions in the game?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Based on a subjective idea of "consistency" that stems from a particular set of choices around why and how to engage with PowerPlay that are far from universal, yes.

NPCs don't vanish at 1% health, invalidating the effort destroying them and the influence gain.

Why should players be able to do that, when that gain is what drives PP? Open needs less holes to make that outcome be 'valid'.

 

[Rubbernuke]

When did fairness enter the chat in relation to player interactions in the game?

The last four pages are me wanting Open (not any other mode) to have less opt outs in Powerplay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The last four pages are me wanting Open (not any other mode) to have less opt outs in Powerplay.

In the pursuit of one interpretation of fairness, in a game where PvP is ultimately an optional extra.

 

[anShpan]

From streams going right now: If I'm not mistaken, on Activities page in PP2.0 everything present including Mining and Exo. I believe, that is all what we need to know how PP2.0 will "restrict" anything to "fair" Open-only. Take it or leave it.